B16: war in God's name is never acceptable!

[Steadfast_love]

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI recently reaffirmed: “war in God’s name is never acceptable!” (italics and exclamation point in original)

But to me, it seems to me that the wars in the OT were wars fought in God’s name so I don’t understand how what the Pope said is true.

Here’s the paragraph it occurs in:
10. Thus there is an urgent need, even within the framework of current international difficulties and tensions, for a commitment to *a human ecology that can favour the growth of the “tree of peace”. *For this to happen, we must be guided by a vision of the person untainted by ideological and cultural prejudices or by political and economic interests which can instil hatred and violence. It is understandable that visions of man will vary from culture to culture. Yet what cannot be admitted is the cultivation of anthropological conceptions that contain the seeds of hostility and violence. Equally unacceptable are *conceptions of God *that would encourage intolerance and recourse to violence against others. This is a point which must be clearly reaffirmed: war in God’s name is never acceptable! When a certain notion of God is at the origin of criminal acts, it is a sign that that notion has already become an ideology

 

[Dranu]

Ya I’m not exactly sure what he means either if what he said is true, because clearly there were wars in the OT sanctioned by God.

 

[Liberian]

Steadfast Love,

Times have changed a little in the past 3,000 years. I would note also that “war in God’s name” is different from “war for self-defense.” His Holiness was not talking about war in general.

• Liberian

 

[StCsDavid]

The very next sentence he mentions “When a certain notion of God is at the origin of criminal acts…” That "certain notion of God "could be directed at either terrorist organizations or legitimate governments using God as the justification for their acts. Either Bush or Bin Laden could say they are fighting in God’s name based on their individual notions of what God wants; however, I don’t think God has revealed himself to either of those guys and sanctioned war in His name. In the OT, it seems to me that God did reveal his desires for war to certain individuals under very specific circumstances.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Steadfast Love,

Times have changed a little in the past 3,000 years. I would note also that “war in God’s name” is different from “war for self-defense.” His Holiness was not talking about war in general.

• Liberian

Which leaves one wondering why Sixtus V blessed the “invincible” Armada (England 1: Spain 0 Rome 0 ) & how the Crusades are to be explained away (sorry, explained )​

The battle of Lepanto was hardly disapproved by Pius V - far from it: he supplied the Christian forces with several galleys.

If the present Pope is rejecting the warlike sentiments of Urban II, Gregory VII, Innocent III, Pius II, Pius V, Sixtus V, & a few others, fair enough - but if so, please, let’s not have any nonsense about the Church never changing its teaching. At the very least, the Pope’s remarks need to be explained - otherwise it looks as though Popes can contradict each other and still be free of contradiction. If the principle of non-contradiction is not regarded as valid at Rome, we really ought to be told.

After all, to the average person this does look like contradiction - it is very rough on the average Catholic trying to make an intelligent defence of RC teaching, if the doctrine seems to be changing almost while he speaks. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be theology professors; so while the Pope may be able to justify his remarks, not all of us can see how he can, because we don’t have his knowledge. It is very disheartening to defend a doctrine (& to risk looking an idiot for doing so), only to find it has been switched to something else.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Steadfast Love,

Times have changed a little in the past 3,000 years. I would note also that “war in God’s name” is different from “war for self-defense.” His Holiness was not talking about war in general.

• Liberian

Even if we handwave the objections to wars of self-defense, I still don’t understand the Pope’s reaffirmation. What about Joshua? By any definition I can think of Joshua’s wars were fought in God’s name and *not *in self defense. But I’d hardly call Joshua’s battles “not acceptable” since they were God’s idea in the first place.

And, if you don’t mind me asking. How was His Holiness not talking about war in general? The plain meaning to me is: war (in general) in Gods name (specificaly, any war in Gods name)is never (“always not” i.e. a blanket statement) acceptable.

 

[Steadfast_love]

The very next sentence he mentions “When a certain notion of God is at the origin of criminal acts…” That "certain notion of God "could be directed at either terrorist organizations or legitimate governments using God as the justification for their acts. Either Bush or Bin Laden could say they are fighting in God’s name based on their individual notions of what God wants; however, I don’t think God has revealed himself to either of those guys and sanctioned war in His name. In the OT, it seems to me that God did reveal his desires for war to certain individuals under very specific circumstances.

Good point. In that context it does look like he’s pointing a finger at people who justify criminal acts by their notion of God

but…

…by invoking the word “never” he points back at the Church and our Jewish roots. Personaly I think that “War in God’s name is never justified” is a gutsy thing to say, I’d just like to see how it’s been reaffirmed before.

I wonder if this has something to do with sending the Ark of the Covenent into battle? That was certainly an example of *war God’s name *being unacceptable.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Which leaves one wondering why Sixtus V blessed the “invincible” Armada (England 1: Spain 0 Rome 0 ) & how the Crusades are to be explained away (sorry, explained )​

…or why God anointed Jesus.
(Guy with spear 1, Son of man 0)

My guess is the answer is in verse Zechariah 4:6
(Might 0, Power 0, by my spirit says the LORD 1)

 

[pira114]

I believe what it is supposed to mean is that using God as an excuse for war is not exceptable.

 

[Dranu]

He seems to really affirm the statement: “This is a point which must be clearly reaffirmed: war in God’s name is never acceptable!” This isn’t him applying it to a solemn, official teaching on faith and morals is it? It is disciplinary or unofficial right? Because otherwise wouldn’t it be infalliable? I assume it must be unofficial since it seems to be in error against the OT, or am I wrong?

Forgive me for not knowing, but I’m rather new to Catholicism, and the infallibility doctrine is something I’m still workign on understanding fully.

 

[tequilamac]

Ya I’m not exactly sure what he means either if what he said is true, because clearly there were wars in the OT sanctioned by God.

I believe as Catholic Christians, we cannot use the wars of the OT to justify the wars in modern times. Before Christ, we were under the law and lived an undeveloped or partially evolved concept of God and man. Under Christ though, we have been freed from bondage to those laws, and anyone reading Christ in the Gospel and His words would have to admit that war in God’s name is never acceptable. To claim that God desires for some reason the wholesale hostility and destruction is actually blasphemy. It is however, one of the roots of the Islamic jihad. But we are not Islamic and we know that the kind of hostility and warfare we see to day is not desireable to God. When we say “in God’s name” we are saying this is something God wants, desires or directs. War never. Peace yes. We can say to God “look our aggressors are unjust and we must act and please bless us and look with mercy on us as we wage this war.” But we cannot ever claim that God WANTS war. That is the difference.

 

[Dranu]

I believe as Catholic Christians, we cannot use the wars of the OT to justify the wars in modern times. Before Christ, we were under the law and lived an undeveloped or partially evolved concept of God and man. Under Christ though, we have been freed from bondage to those laws, and anyone reading Christ in the Gospel and His words would have to admit that war in God’s name is never acceptable. To claim that God desires for some reason the wholesale hostility and destruction is actually blasphemy. It is however, one of the roots of the Islamic jihad. But we are not Islamic and we know that the kind of hostility and warfare we see to day is not desireable to God. When we say “in God’s name” we are saying this is something God wants, desires or directs. War never. Peace yes. We can say to God “look our aggressors are unjust and we must act and please bless us and look with mercy on us as we wage this war.” But we cannot ever claim that God WANTS war. That is the difference.

I certainly agree, and don’t think in modern times we can use it as an excuse. I doubt God willed the hostility or destruction in the OT except that as it was needed at the time for the chosen people, and even that only as it would have been justifiable. I’m not trying to come up with an excuse for modern holy war, but am talking specificaly of the events in the OT, and them by themselves. Are we to say that their actions in their times is not acceptable, when they were responding to God’s will, or are we to doubt that God did not will it for them?

“We can say to God “look our aggressors are unjust and we must act and please bless us and look with mercy on us as we wage this war.” But we cannot ever claim that God WANTS war. That is the difference.”
-I whole heartedly agree.

 

[Dranu]

Hmmm come to think of it maybe that is the point. The pope’s statement of: “This is a point which must be clearly reaffirmed: war in God’s name is never acceptable!” could be to say God never wills war in itself, is like God did not will for Christ to be in pain, but he willed for him to be the saviour above all. In this way the old testament would be understandable, for it would be the outcome that God willed, the war is an evil byproduct that had to be faced because of the fall of man.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Times have changed a little in the past 3,000 years.

Times may change but scripture teaches that God does not change because God is ALWAYS perfect. If God changed, that would mean that He was becoming either more or less perfect – which is not possible.

 

[Brendan]

Ya I’m not exactly sure what he means either if what he said is true, because clearly there were wars in the OT sanctioned by God.

Sanctioned by God is different than being done “in God’s Name”

The wars of the Isrealites against the Bashan or the Phillistines were to reclaim and protect the land that God had given them.

The Crusades were the repelling of Muslim invaders into Christian lands (yes Turkey was once populated by Greek speaking Christians, and Egypt was populated by Coptic speaking Christians, both were subject to invasion by outside armies).

To restort to war for purposes of defense and the repelling of invaders is not what Pope Benedict is condemming here.

 

[manualman]

We should note that the OT is the story of God revealing himself to humanity and a lesson in humanity learning that it cannot acheive pure goodness without the Grace and mercy of God. As such, specific episodes where God commands war cannot be taken as precedents for modern behavior. Rather, they are part of lessons learned and completed.

I think this can be reconciled with historic church teachings as noted. Noting the necessity of war in isolated circumstances is quite different than war being the WILL of God.

On the other hand, wouldn’t that open the same loophole on the other side? Can’t the jihadis say “Yup, that’s absolutely right. Allah doesn’t will for us to war with any man. He wills for them to submit to Islam. But since they defy his will, we have no choice except to jihad against them.”

Tricky stuff, methinks.

 

[Dranu]

We should note that the OT is the story of God revealing himself to humanity and a lesson in humanity learning that it cannot acheive pure goodness without the Grace and mercy of God. As such, specific episodes where God commands war cannot be taken as precedents for modern behavior. Rather, they are part of lessons learned and completed.

I think this can be reconciled with historic church teachings as noted. Noting the necessity of war in isolated circumstances is quite different than war being the WILL of God.

On the other hand, wouldn’t that open the same loophole on the other side? Can’t the jihadis say “Yup, that’s absolutely right. Allah doesn’t will for us to war with any man. He wills for them to submit to Islam. But since they defy his will, we have no choice except to jihad against them.”

Tricky stuff, methinks.

Heheh, the pope is probably already on their (jihadist) hate/infidel list. Him saying what he did would probably only make them think they are even more justified, not that he shouldn’t have, just that the jihadist are probably beyond deaf as far as dialoge goes.

 

[Liberian]

Steadfast Love (and others),

First of all, let’s separate what Benedict XVI said from what he did not say. He said that “war in God’s name is never acceptable.” He didn’t say “war in God’s name was never acceptable.” He is specifically addressing our present age and the various courses of action open to us; he was not standing in judgment on history.

Second of all, let’s draw a distinction between asking God’s blessing on your going to war and going to war for God. In the first case, you are going to war for some reason–self-defense comes to mind, given that the United States was attacked rather seriously on September 11, 2001–and you are asking God to bless your efforts. In the second case, you are going to war for the express purpose of being God’s instrument–“the scourge of God,” if you will (that was how Christians of the time described Attila the Hun). There is a major difference between the two concepts.

• Liberian

 

[InTheWilderness]

We know that God would want there to be both peace and justice in the world. However, true peace requires, as a prerequisite, justice.

Really, this particular statement of the Pope is extremely difficult to figure out. It is right up there with the writings of Paul in terms of being difficult. We must remember he is a theologian and an academic. Once a person’s base level of knowledge and understanding reaches a certain level, it becomes difficult for them to put things in terms others can understand without losing their intended meaning. I think maybe Benedict XVI runs into that from time to time.

Oh, to answer a question asked, I think this is without doubt this is not an infallible teaching. While this was far more than just a personal opinion, it is still fallible.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Steadfast Love (and others),

First of all, let’s separate what Benedict XVI said from what he did not say. He said that “war in God’s name is never acceptable.” He didn’t say “war in God’s name was never acceptable.” He is specifically addressing our present age and the various courses of action open to us; he was not standing in judgment on history.

As I mentioned earlier, both scripture and Church teaching tell us that God does not change. If it WAS at one time acceptable to go to war in God’s name, then that is still the case.